Download Interstate Conflict in Iraq: Geographical Contiguity & Regime Type and more Essays (university) History of War in PDF only on Docsity!
Feedback: War paper. This is an excellent essay that demonstrates a high level of research into Iraq and international conflict. Well done. You draw upon a good selection of theories of war and discuss their implications for your state. You display a high level of engagement with relevant academic material and you reference it appropriately. Your essay is well structured, and written in a convincing and assured manner. Your argument is consistent and easy to follow. Future submissions could be improved by making sure that some of your paragraphs are shorter and more focused. This will make your central arguments even clearer. Introduction Iraq imploded into a chaotic battleground of domestic forces competing for control, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. The transition from a powerful polity, which initiated interstate wars, to a breeding ground for international terrorism makes it of great interest in international politics. In turn, with the prominent threat of Daesh to Western civilisation, exploring the progression of conflict within Iraq will illuminate lessons for promoting international security in the future. This essay will focus upon Iraq’s conflict propensity and the threat it has faced. I will extend examination to the Iran-Iraq war (1980 – 1988), the Gulf war (1990 – 1991) and the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 in justifying two theories of interstate war. Initially, it will be presented that geographical contiguity persuasively explains traditional interstate war where Iraq acted as the ‘initiator.’ However, this cannot explain the scenario in which Iraq was the international ‘target’. Furthermore, it will be asserted that regime type, as a structural or motivational consideration, provides a coherent explanation for interstate war where Iraq was the initiator and target. Examination of regime type as a cause of interstate conflict, along with the extensive time period selected, enables the tracing of progression of interstate conflict across time. As part of the wider study, I will illustrate that interstate war has seamlessly transitioned towards more diverse forms of conflict: civil and widespread terrorism. Unfortunately, due to the limited nature of this essay and the inconclusive statistical evidence available for the 2003 war, economic interests and the resource of oil have been excluded (Tunç, 2005). The core argument of my paper is that despite geographical contiguity providing a persuasive explanation for traditional interstate war, regime type – as a structural or motivational deliberation, can be rooted at the core of all interstate conflict regardless of whether Iraq was the initiator or the target. Geographical Contiguity and Territorial Dispute The theory of geographical contiguity as a cause of interstate war has been extensively examined in the academic literature (Diehl, 1985; Maoz and Russett, 1993; Kocs, 1995; Vasquez, 1995; Hensel, 1996; Senese, 1996; Bennett and Stam, 2004) and convincingly prioritised when assessed against other independent actors (Bremer, 1992). In more detail, Vasquez (1995), Kocs (1995) and Bennett and Stam (2004) provide separate accounts illustrating that recurrent disputes over border demarcations can explain why neighbouring dyads go to war. Specifically, when examining the relationship between Iraq
and Iran, it is contended that the origins of the war were related to the ongoing dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, with the most recent treaty signed in 1975 being of deep mortification to the Iraqi government (Swearingen, 1988). Consequentially, President Hussein vowed to readdress the boundary struggle upon taking presidency in 1978, later stating ‘The war was an extension of the politics of border negotiations by means of a military siege’ (Swearingen, 1988: 408). This reinforces my core argument that Iraq’s propensity for interstate war, where they are the initiating state, has been largely directed by territorial dispute, and a desire by Iraq to reclaim land. In further consolidating this argument, through exploring the Iraqi–Kuwaiti relationship, one can trace similar assertions. Theorists, Khadduri and Ghareeb (2001) discuss that a claim for re-unity can be traced to Kuwait previously being ‘part of Basra (a southern province of Iraq) under Ottoman rule.’ Thus, the core cause of Iraq’s declaration of war against Kuwait can be linked to a protracted history of conflict between the geographically aligned polities. Moreover, the Iraqi Prime Minister Qassem reiterated, upon Kuwait achieving independence in 1961, that it was an ‘integral part of Iraq and threatened action.’ Even after the demise of General Qassem’s reign in February 1963, Iraq moved some way towards accepting Kuwait’s existence as a sovereign state, but critically failed to define the borders between the two states (ICB Data Viewer, 2016). This provides a further illustration of the persistent underlying dispute that has existed throughout time, complementing the thesis purported by Vasquez (1995) and Kocs (1995) that when disagreements are handled inadequately and border disputes unresolved, war is a highly likely as a consequence. This supports my core argument that when Iraq is the ‘initiator’, territorial quarrel is a critical factor in increasing the propensity for war and more specifically in explaining the origins of the Gulf war (ICB Data Viewer, 2016; Political Economy Research Institute, 2016). In line with this theory, Gibler (2007: 3) purports that dyads, which lack territorial disagreement are ‘highly unlikely to experience conflict.’ Nevertheless, when examining the relationship between Iraq and the US led coalition, one cannot assert that territorial disputes played a role in the conflict that occurred in 2003, due to the geographical parting that existed between Iraq and the Western threat (ICB Data Viewer, 2016). In support of my argument, it is clear that when Iraq is the target, the contiguity argument is unconvincing in explaining why the threat emerged. In turn, this encourages the examination of regime type, as a structural or motivational factor, in order to deduce an alternative explanation which addresses both Iraq as the initiator and target in interstate war. Regime Type and Democratisation The democratic peace theory, which is based upon the premise that democracies in the contemporary era have never engaged in interstate conflict with one another, provides indication that regime type matters in explaining the occurrence and absence of interstate war (Rummel, 1983). It has been statistically proven that war is more likely to occur where at least one of the dyadic actors is autocratic in nature – ‘decreasing libertarianism [namely that of political freedoms] means increasing violence’ (Rummel, 1983: 44; Chan, 1984; Bremer, 1992; Lake, 1992; Maoz and Russett, 1993). The explanation for the democratic peace thesis namely rests upon institutional factors being more transparent in a democracy, with greater opportunities for deliberation before engaging in military conflict (Gibler, 2007). In applying the Iraqi cases to this theory, there are two strands for consideration. Firstly, through analysing the Polity IV scores and freedom indicators, becomes evident that regime type as a structural cause of war matters in explaining war initiated by Iraq. Secondly, through
Chan, S. (1984). "Mirror, Mirror On the Wall...: Are The Freer Countries More Pacific?". Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(4), pp. 617-648. Diehl, P. (1985). Contiguity and Military Escalation in Major Power Rivalries, 1816-1980. The Journal of Politics , 47(4), pp. 1203-1211. Freedom House (2016) [Online]. Detailed Data and Sub-Scores 1980-2015. Freedom of the Press. Accessed on Wednesday 3rd^ February 2016, 16:00 at: https://freedomhouse.org/report- types/freedom-press Gibler, D. (2007). Bordering On Peace: Democracy, Territorial Issues, And Conflict. International Studies Quarterly , 51(3), pp. 509-532. Hensel, P. (1996). Charting a Course to Conflict: Territorial Issues and Interstate Conflict, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science , 15(1), pp. 43-73. ICB Data Viewer (2016) [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3rd^ February 2016, 16:09 at: www.cidcm.umd.edu/icb/dataviewer/ Kesler, C. (2005). Democracy and the Bush Doctrine, Captive Nations, Real Clear Politics [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3 rd^ February 2016, 16:09 at: www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_26_05_CK.html Khadduri, M. and Ghareeb, E. (2001). War in the Gulf, 1990-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kocs, S. (1995). Territorial Disputes and Interstate War, 1945-1987. The Journal of Politics , 57(1), pp. 159-175. Lake, D. (1992). Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War. The American Political Science Review, 86(1), pp. 24-37. Maoz, Z. and Russett, B. (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review , 87(03), pp. 624-638. Political Economy Research Institute (2016) [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3rd^ February 2016, 16:00 at: www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/Iraq3.pdf Polity IV. (2014a) [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3 rd^ February 2016, 16:00 at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/irq2.htm Polity IV. (2014b) [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3 rd^ February 2016, 16:00 at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/irn2.htm Polity IV. (2014c) [Online]. Accessed on Wednesday 3 rd^ February 2016, 16:00 at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/kuw2.htm Rummel, R. (1983). Libertarianism and International Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 27(1), pp. 27-71. Senese, P. (1996). Geographical Proximity and Issue Salience: Their Effects on the Escalation of Militarized Interstate Conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science , 15(2), pp. 133-161. Swearingen, W. (1988). Geopolitical Origins of the Iran-Iraq War. Geographical Review , 78(4), pp. 405-416.
Tunç, H. (2005). What Was It All About After All? The Causes of the Iraq War. Contemporary Security Policy 26(2), pp. 335-355. Vasquez, J. (1995). Why Do Neighbours Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality. Journal of Peace Research , 32(3), pp. 277-293.
